92 Decision Citation: BVA 92-23649
Y92
BOARD OF VETERANS' APPEALS
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20420
DOCKET NO. 92-02 948 ) DATE
)
)
)
THE ISSUES
1. Entitlement to service connection for a psychiatric
disability.
2. Entitlement to an increased rating for peptic ulcer
disease with residuals of a subtotal gastrectomy currently
rated 20 percent disabling.
3. Entitlement to a total rating for compensation purposes
based on individual unemployability.
REPRESENTATION
Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans
WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL
Appellant
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD
Mark D. Hindin, Counsel
INTRODUCTION
This matter arises from a December 1990 decision of the New
York, New York, Regional Office (RO). The veteran's notice
of disagreement was received in January 1991. He had active
service from October 1943 to March 1945. The statement of
the case was issued in March 1991. The veteran's
substantive appeal was received later that month. At his
request, a hearing was held before a hearing officer at the
RO in June 1991. The hearing officer issued his decision in
November 1991 and a supplemental statement of the case was
issued that same month. The case was received and docketed
at the Board of Veterans' Appeals in March 1992. It was
then referred to the veteran's representative, the Disabled
American Veterans, for preparation of a brief on appeal. A
brief on appeal was received from that organization in May
1992. The case is now ready for appellate consideration.
REMAND
The veteran and others have reported treatment from a number
of sources. However, records of such treatment have not
been secured. The United States Court of Veterans Appeals
(the Court) has held that a part of the Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA) duty to assist veterans with the
development of their claims extends to seeking all possible
records which may be relevant to such claims. Murincsak v.
Derwinski, U.S. Vet.App. No. 90-222 (April 24, 1992). In
view of the foregoing, it is the decision of the Board that
this case should be REMANDED for the following action:
The RO should take the necessary steps to
obtain any available records of treatment
for the veteran from the Unity Hospital
and Dispensary, Brooklyn, New York;
Harold Jacobs, M.D., Brooklyn, New York;
Bernard B. Abramovici, M.D. (we note that
Dr. Abramovici has submitted summaries of
treatment but has not furnished copies of
treatment records); St. Albans Naval
Hospital, Brooklyn, New York; Brooklyn VA
Medical Center, St. Albans Division;
Brooklyn VA Outpatient Clinic, Reyerson
Street, Brooklyn, New York. Any records
obtained should be associated with the
claims folder.
If after completion of the requested development, there
remain issues to be decided, the veteran and his
representative should be furnished with a supplemental
statement of the case on all issues for which a timely
notice of disagreement has been received. They should then
be afforded a reasonable period in which to respond.
Thereafter, subject to current appellate procedures, the
case should be returned to the Board for further appellate
consideration, if appropriate.
BOARD OF VETERANS' APPEALS
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20420
JEFF MARTIN IRVIN H. PEISER, M.D.
E. W. SEERY
Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 1991), only a decision of the
Board of Veterans' Appeals is appealable to the United
States Court of Veterans Appeals. This remand is in the
nature of a preliminary order and does not constitute a
decision of the Board on the merits of your appeal. 57 Fed.
Reg. 4126 (1992) (to be codified as 38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b)).